How ADDY, Not ADDIE, Can Help You Build Better Courses

"I've done all the right things: I did my analysis, designed appropriate learning activities, and developed my course using valid instructional design principles. Yet I'm not getting great feedback on my courses. What am I doing wrong?"

The short answer: You're probably not doing anything wrong.

You didn't say which process or methodology you're using but the fact that you have standards in place leads me to believe you're doing the right things.

Most designers use ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation) as a process for building courses. Sure, there are variations, but almost all instructional design models incorporate similar elements, in one form or another.

And while ADDIE provides a helpful and systematic approach for crafting learning experiences, it's not a tool to stimulate creative thinking.

Lookin' forward to the e-learning

Remember how much air time the Friday music video got when it first came out? After a few weeks, what happened? I'll bet each subsequent time you heard or watched the video, you liked it less.

E-learning courses are a lot like the Friday video.

A course that seems great today probably won't seem nearly as great next year or the year after. Building better courses is less about doing things "right" and more about finding ways to manage and meet your learners' shifting expectations.

The advertising industry understands this. The most successful ads are usually those that don't look like ads. There's even an annual contest to celebrate the best and most creative ads each year.

The ADDYs

The ADDY Awards are the world's largest advertising competition. Its sponsor, the American Advertising Federation, describes the awards like this:

"The ADDY Awards program is designed to reward creative excellence in advertising. It is, therefore, a creative competition. Of course, there are no absolute measures for creative excellence, no devices that can be laid beside a piece of work to determine its worth. The judging of good or effective advertising, versus bad or ineffective advertising, is a difficult task, at best. Like other selective processes, which call for opinions, it is extremely subjective."

In other words, you can do everything right and still not win.

Let's be clear. No one's suggesting you skip over doing the basics—that's your foundation. You still have to conduct analysis, design appropriate practice activities, and structure everything in a way that makes sense.

But there's also an x-factor. Like successful advertising, great elearning courses also have an "it." And that "it," is your ADDY.

Does This Course Have ADDY?

ADDY doesn't mean you have to redesign your course model or change how you're delivering courses. Instead, it's about incrementally trying new techniques and approaches.

Here are a few ways—with examples—you can design more ADDY into your courses.

Storytelling devices

Stories are ideal for communicating how something works in the real world. Emphasize or exaggerate the conflict or consequences over the information. Want an easy place to begin? Try reproducing a popular reality show format like Mike did in Psyched in 10:

Another idea is to let the dialog drive the course using a layered-storytelling approach similar to Bruce's Machine Principles.

Humor and parodies

What are some common analogies or clichés that apply to your topic? If you're designing a course on lawn care, what could you compare it to?

If you think of weeds as your enemy then you might also see it as your mission to eradicate them to protect the residential lawn. That could give you a Home Improvement meets Stripes meets Caddyshack design theme.

Point of view and perspective

When you want learners to see your courses differently, you have to disrupt their expectations. Reversing or changing viewpoints is a classic ADDY technique for contrasting the expected with the unexpected.

If you're training sales people to educate consumers about bed bugs, for example, you could present things as if you were:

Shock tactics and drama

If your training is about solving a problem, try emphasizing the problem with drama or provocative graphics.

Say you're designing training on diabetes, how would you begin the course? Bullet points? Graphs and charts? Statistics? If you're going for ADDY, you might open with the sound of a heart pump and a time bomb strapped around someone's waist.

What do you think?

What are some of your favorite courses? What made them stand out from others you've seen? What are some marginal changes you can make to give your courses more ADDY?

Duane - that's a great resource. I found the opening section on audience interesting:
"From concept to implementation, the audience is a critical factor in the process of developing online courses. Every thing designed and developed should be done with the audience in mind."
It's interesting because everyone knows audience consideration is important, but it's so common to see courses designed for the widest possible audience. Think about the average Hollywood movie or an IFC, indie movie and how each targets their audience.
Thanks for including that resource--lots of great info there.

As someone who has hired outside contractors to build DL courses, I can tell you that nothing drives us more to distraction than a group of developers obviously more interested in winning industry awards than providing the actual necessary content to the training. When the "fluff and nonsense" is delivered and the target population says "it sucks" I know that the developer wasn't paying attention to them. Nothing works without a meaningful target population analysis and an understanding of their preferred learning styles.
Duane - I agree with your reference. Center everything on the learner audience. Everything else is subordinate to that.

An award as a hypothetical motivational exercise can be effective. A mentor of mine used to frame a hypothetical award for the team as a stakeholder and team motivator. This was merely a way to frame the vision for the outcome. Rarely did it result in an actual award.
But I'll agree with Lawrence that making an actual award the primary target is the wrong focus.
I'll also agree, in part, with centering everything on the learner audience. The audience is a MAJOR component. But it shares priority with the business / performance goals.

i'll agree that the business/performance goals are a top priority. I sort of bifurcate them as:
1. The business/performance goals define what you want to happen as a RESULT of the training.
2. The target population analysis guides you in deciding HOW to reach the business/performance goals.

I totally agree that chasing awards isn't the path to better elearning. In fact, even the ADDYs disqualify submissions created solely for the purpose of winning.
I did suggest that sometimes the basics, combined with the same course model, might not be enough to create the most engaging courses.
Maybe that's a better question to ask: Is it possible to design effective, learner-centered courses that don't look like typical courses?

Yes, David.. there is.... keeping the audience at center mass throughout the process only ensures that success is achieved. Creativity around the look and feel of a course extends beyond this core belief. Understanding the learning style of your audience can open doors to the imagination of building a course that is unique and successful.
While I agree that expectations and objectives of the client are extremely important when it comes to content and possibly implementation, the real success comes from harnessing the learning style of the audience and combining it with the client's expectations (content).
The fun part of ADDIE is really in the D and D of ADDIE. Thinking outside of the box for design and development must reflect the learning styles of the audience. This is wh... Expand

Yes, David.. there is.... keeping the audience at center mass throughout the process only ensures that success is achieved. Creativity around the look and feel of a course extends beyond this core belief. Understanding the learning style of your audience can open doors to the imagination of building a course that is unique and successful.
While I agree that expectations and objectives of the client are extremely important when it comes to content and possibly implementation, the real success comes from harnessing the learning style of the audience and combining it with the client's expectations (content).
The fun part of ADDIE is really in the D and D of ADDIE. Thinking outside of the box for design and development must reflect the learning styles of the audience. This is where the magic starts when it comes to ADDIE.
Sorry for the long winded answer, but the audience is at the center of all successful courses. Only after this is achieved can the "real" award be received, which is the satisfaction in knowing that you created something very useful for others to learn. No other award is greater than this.

I think we've missed David's point with this post. Maybe by using a style of communication that leverages the psychology of persuasion in the construction of messages we could be more successful than when using bland, linear, cookie cutter expectations so common in courseware?
There is A LOT of science in marketing communication and it's all validated by the success of the campaign. User tested. That presents a tremendous opportunity for application of the lessons of one discipline to another. I don't think David's post was about look and feel at all. It was more about the construction of our messages and the sources of inspiration we draw from to build those messages.
I like asking my audience what they like and need. I also like testing with my audience throughout the process. But ... Expand

I think we've missed David's point with this post. Maybe by using a style of communication that leverages the psychology of persuasion in the construction of messages we could be more successful than when using bland, linear, cookie cutter expectations so common in courseware?
There is A LOT of science in marketing communication and it's all validated by the success of the campaign. User tested. That presents a tremendous opportunity for application of the lessons of one discipline to another. I don't think David's post was about look and feel at all. It was more about the construction of our messages and the sources of inspiration we draw from to build those messages.
I like asking my audience what they like and need. I also like testing with my audience throughout the process. But I'll stop short of using the audience as my only source of input and including all of the audience's input in the final product. Expressing that the audience is all that matters oversimplifies the inputs we consider when solving instructional and communication problems. There are many dimensions to consider and the methods these dimensions are applied vary by problem.
I see nothing wrong (in fact I see everything right) with leveraging the experience and success of other communication disciplines to improve my own.

"The fun part of ADDIE is really in the D and D of ADDIE."
Agreed! And that's the reason I referenced Joe's bed bug training course. Targeted to sales people, it creatively reversed the "expected" narrative by framing the training from the bed bugs' perspective.
Admittedly, I didn't see the final product, but I imagine most of the extra design effort came from the writing and scripting side more than the visual design.
I also agree with your point that audience is central to all successful learning. The challenge is balancing audience preferences with corporate constraints like time and resources. Most times there’s a one-size-fits-all approach that usually fits no one. That’s where having a creative angle can help.
If I want to learn Office 2010, for example, I have over 600 books to ... Expand

"The fun part of ADDIE is really in the D and D of ADDIE."
Agreed! And that's the reason I referenced Joe's bed bug training course. Targeted to sales people, it creatively reversed the "expected" narrative by framing the training from the bed bugs' perspective.
Admittedly, I didn't see the final product, but I imagine most of the extra design effort came from the writing and scripting side more than the visual design.
I also agree with your point that audience is central to all successful learning. The challenge is balancing audience preferences with corporate constraints like time and resources. Most times there’s a one-size-fits-all approach that usually fits no one. That’s where having a creative angle can help.
If I want to learn Office 2010, for example, I have over 600 books to choose from on Amazon. Are those books competing more on content? Presentation? Marketing? Contrast that with a typical corporate setting with 50k+ employees and one training department… well, you get the point.
What would you recommend to folks designing elearning for broad and general audiences? Oh, and offering Manager and Employee versions doesn't count :-)

Great post, David! This is an interesting topic to ponder.... What is interesting to me is that people attempt to straddle the lines of marketing and instructional design as if it is the same thing. While there are some similarities between these two concepts, they are very different. At it's core, they both attempt to appeal to the audience. However, marketing is a strategy to find a captive audience. The instructional design strategy is to retain the already captive audience. Thus, the methods used are different. Getting you to purchase a car requires different selling techniques. Teaching you how to drive the car you already purchased requires different tactics.
Catering to a broad and general audience requires the ability to determine commonalities that are within the learni... Expand

Great post, David! This is an interesting topic to ponder.... What is interesting to me is that people attempt to straddle the lines of marketing and instructional design as if it is the same thing. While there are some similarities between these two concepts, they are very different. At it's core, they both attempt to appeal to the audience. However, marketing is a strategy to find a captive audience. The instructional design strategy is to retain the already captive audience. Thus, the methods used are different. Getting you to purchase a car requires different selling techniques. Teaching you how to drive the car you already purchased requires different tactics.
Catering to a broad and general audience requires the ability to determine commonalities that are within the learning styles. For example, we know that most people are visual learners. ( www.instructionaldesignexpert.com/learningstyles.html) Understanding this concept will help us find commonalities. Thus, infographics, for example, can help the visual learner and the auditory learner, catering to approximately 95% of all learning styles. An infographic is great for the visual learner. The auditory learner requires time to digest the visual so allowing a self-paced approach, such as elearning, caters very well to these two styles. By analyzing the learning styles, we can create courses that appeal to both the broad and general audiences.
But this approach is only part of the solution. We must still ask ourselves why do we have an audience in the first place. For example, learning Office 2010 is the purpose. From this topic alone, we know that the audience is interested in learning more about this topic. Further audience analysis may show the level of knowledge that the audience has about this software (i.e., beginner, intermediate,etc.).
Applying these two principles will help us in achieving our training objectives.
Don't you just love instructional design? I do!

@Duane. I would argue that marketing and instructional design are not as far apart as you implied above. If you think the audience of your courses is captive already, just by nature of opening your course (by choice or under duress)... Some one is fooling one's self:)
Sure the methods of conveyance are different. But that's not the intent of David's parallels between one communication discipline and another, in my opinion. It is the consideration that you still need to captivate your audience at some level to get them to drink from the fountain (not visually, necessarily). Psychology applies in either case and in some cases using identical methods.
The nature of marketing collateral is fleeting. You have a very short period of time to catch someone's focus and burn a positive associ... Expand

@Duane. I would argue that marketing and instructional design are not as far apart as you implied above. If you think the audience of your courses is captive already, just by nature of opening your course (by choice or under duress)... Some one is fooling one's self:)
Sure the methods of conveyance are different. But that's not the intent of David's parallels between one communication discipline and another, in my opinion. It is the consideration that you still need to captivate your audience at some level to get them to drink from the fountain (not visually, necessarily). Psychology applies in either case and in some cases using identical methods.
The nature of marketing collateral is fleeting. You have a very short period of time to catch someone's focus and burn a positive association (or an association at all) for application during the opportune moment. I don't think this is at all different from an instructional conveyance.
I'm not a proponent of learning styles. I think it's a poor guideline as a primary consideration. There are styles of conveyance that work well and others that don't work well - with people in general. My audiences range from 500 people to 100k. It's simply unreasonable to even attempt to guess where the learning styles of this audience stand. Even less reasonable to try to accommodate each individual style. This makes learning styles as an individual factor an irrational first choice. We can make assumptions and validate those assumptions through user testing but it's simply not cost effective (or effective period) to try to nail down a match of "content conveyance" to individual learning styles.
For smaller audiences, and still not as a primary consideration, I think it can do no harm. But if you don't consider probability of success of the *method of conveyance* to all audiences after first establishing the performance gaps, context, and targets the risks that the solution won't solve the problem (regardless of what the level 1 feedback says) are high. That's my view anyway:)
The same problems can stem from an aggregate consideration of content as the primary driver. Only considering these two paves the path to mediocrity and limited effectiveness.
We use a three layer process for filtering solution selection. Category selection is driven by analysis data to determine if a training solution is required at all (five categories - Training, Job Aid w/ Orientation, Job Aid w/ Training, Job Aid, Other non-K&S). More specific data, entering questions, and consultant involvement helps to specify specific method selection. The third layer is media selection which is an even more granular design selection.
During the pre-design phase we ask questions like:
- How does the solution align with the timing of task performance?
- What level of proficiency is expected? What level does the typical performer already meet?
- How safe is the task under (best, worst, typical) conditions?
- What's the demand?
- How complex is the accomplishment? How complex is each task under the accomplishment?
- Will the solution help people? (seems like a stupid question, but you've probably seen a heap of solutions that were built *just because*)
There are a bunch more questions we ask in our Rapid Task Analysis and Pre-Design Analysis. These span multiple dimensions and examine the whole performance pie from the individual factors to the organizational factors. We're trying to supply a solution that will address a known problem while respecting the learner's level, time and environment. Our process isn't perfect and it misses the mark by a little bit occasionally. That's why we commit to evaluation:)

I'm with Steve on this one. All too often, audiences are only "captive" because they are required to take a particular course (compliance, yummy!). Also, even though the research on "learning styles" is, at best, mixed, the concept is now commonly accepted and pursued. In fact (in terms of online courses), the two largest factors in learner success are prior knowledge of topic and learner motivation.
The motivation aspect is where, I believe, this current thread comes into play. If I have a group of learners who are less than enthusiastic about the course I am developing, how can I borrow from other fields (such as marketing) to, as Steve states so well, "catch someone's focus and burn a positive association." How can I imbue my course with "it" so that an unmotivated learner beco... Expand

I'm with Steve on this one. All too often, audiences are only "captive" because they are required to take a particular course (compliance, yummy!). Also, even though the research on "learning styles" is, at best, mixed, the concept is now commonly accepted and pursued. In fact (in terms of online courses), the two largest factors in learner success are prior knowledge of topic and learner motivation.
The motivation aspect is where, I believe, this current thread comes into play. If I have a group of learners who are less than enthusiastic about the course I am developing, how can I borrow from other fields (such as marketing) to, as Steve states so well, "catch someone's focus and burn a positive association." How can I imbue my course with "it" so that an unmotivated learner becomes engaged with my course?
Not an easy task. But one worth pursuing.

Bruce arriving stage right - late to the conversation (again) but it's because I was invoicing and trying to close the month as positively as possible - FORGIVE ME GENTS FORGIVE ME!!!!!!!
Did that work?
&gt;
Apart from being true, (hopefully you could actually imagine it happening, and empathise with it..?), it was a rather "unusual" entrance to a thread.
For me, if allowed by "my client" (whoever they are), I try to find something that all the audience, potentially can say "That's me!" within a few seconds. Learning styles are important, but you would not teach an org-chart using drone - you would use a picture....BUT...if I can say (for example - and I am making this up as I go along...after Merlot) "Hello and welcome to this course called Musical Chairs, where am I going to sit ... Expand

Bruce arriving stage right - late to the conversation (again) but it's because I was invoicing and trying to close the month as positively as possible - FORGIVE ME GENTS FORGIVE ME!!!!!!!
Did that work?
>
Apart from being true, (hopefully you could actually imagine it happening, and empathise with it..?), it was a rather "unusual" entrance to a thread.
For me, if allowed by "my client" (whoever they are), I try to find something that all the audience, potentially can say "That's me!" within a few seconds. Learning styles are important, but you would not teach an org-chart using drone - you would use a picture....BUT...if I can say (for example - and I am making this up as I go along...after Merlot) "Hello and welcome to this course called Musical Chairs, where am I going to sit this year? Actually, it's not called that at all, but in essence that's what we are going to explain, because Company X is changing it's organisation this year, and we are ALL going to be affected".
It's trying to get people IMMEDIATELY linked to a topic, intrigued almost.
Did you know there are 54 million (estimated) wild rabbits in the UK? Actually, it's probably a few more by now. I digress....
When I perform close-up magic at bars and restaurants (http://www.magicinyourhands.co.uk/ - available for all your entertainment needs), I start *every* walkaround performance with this fact. WHY? Because people have never heard this fact before (unless I have performed for them before, and then then give me tips to go away..life is good). Anyway - they have not heard it, and it intrigues them, especially as I put a small model rabbit on the table in front of them. In their heads, they want to know more, despite the fact that I have snuck up on them, and am delivering the rabbit sitting on the "spoon of illusion". I then launch into a routine using the alpha male, or "table leader" as my assistant.
What's my point? My point is that my audience, if asked straight out "Do you like magicians, (and eLearning...)?" would probably answer "Hell no!" to both questions. My job (in both roles) is to appear from nowhere, (after METICULOUSLY planning how I will engage them), and then grab them by the psyches so that they have no chance of escape. They WANT me to continue. Once the first 3 minutes are over, I can hear the words of Hans Christian Andersen saying "Come on little children...do you want to hear MORE..?", they always do, so I show them more, but not quite enough to satisy them completely and sate them. Leave the audience wanting more (except in compliance training) - and then leave them wanting more training, or at least not immediately going "BOO!" when they hear they have to have training.
Now....a bad magician, (and I apologise - there are plenty of them) will approach a table and say "Can I show you a card trick?" - to which the obvious and usual answer is "No, p155 off, my wife and I are just discussing a serious matter...". It's all about presentation - you need to diffuse the obvious complaints before people get given the chance to make them.
When I perform, I wear a badge, it says "Bruce Graham - Magician", I wear black. Why? Because most people get as far as "Bruce Graham - Ma" and their heads say "AAARRGGHH - it's Bruce Graham, the MANAGER" and when they go silent, I know I have about 15 seconds to get them engaged in the whole "54 million and 80 rabbits in the UK" thing. Every magician I spoke to used to tell me "do not wear a badge...", now they ask me where to get them made.
We have to look at what we do, whether eLearning/ID or close-up/table magic, and find interesting ways to do it. I think it's very easy to get caught up in technology and theory. I know the technology and theory of magic very well, I know 25 ways to make a rabbit dissappear (eating is my favourite...), but it's all about grabbing the audience, and making them WANT me to be their captor. "Imprison me, imprison me" - I want them to say.
By the time the bunnies routine is over, and they have multiplied in their hands, got into their pockets and doubled in size IN THEIR HANDS for Heaven's sake, yes, they want me to do the card trick. They beg me to do a card trick...Sometimes they put money in my pockets...YEY!
That's what I try to do when I design a piece of eLearning, within the boundaries that the customer gives me. Very often, I am tied to their standards, expectations colour schemes etc., and yes, this frustrates me. Very often, (as mentioned in another thread today..), it's just about asking "What is the business problem that you are trying to solve, and how do you know it is a problem?" When I know those things, (just the same as when a waiter says "The kitchen just dropped 3 steaks, go and keep table 17 occupied for 5 minutes), I just have as much fun as I can trying to solve the problem.
Hope some of that makes sense. If not, blame the Merlot.
Bruce

Awesome dialog here! It is interesting to see the various opinions and the sharing of experiences on this thread.
The one thing that I have experienced over the years is that old ideas are constant. The only thing that changes is how they are presented. For me the audience is the number one factor to consider. If a full audience analysis is done properly training will focus on the differences of what people already know and what they need to know for that job or function. Thus, required skill minus current skills equal training objectives. These training objectives are matched with the client's objectives and expectations to ensure that appropriate content is included. Knowing your audience makes a big difference in how training is delivered and presented. Understanding your contr... Expand

Awesome dialog here! It is interesting to see the various opinions and the sharing of experiences on this thread.
The one thing that I have experienced over the years is that old ideas are constant. The only thing that changes is how they are presented. For me the audience is the number one factor to consider. If a full audience analysis is done properly training will focus on the differences of what people already know and what they need to know for that job or function. Thus, required skill minus current skills equal training objectives. These training objectives are matched with the client's objectives and expectations to ensure that appropriate content is included. Knowing your audience makes a big difference in how training is delivered and presented. Understanding your contraints in the implementation phase of ADDIE will influence the design and development of the materials.
The bottom line, however, is knowing how your audience learns best. I work for a major corporation with 100K + employees. We occaisionally have to create separate versions of a training course. One generic course for all 100K employees will simply not work. There are numberous SMEs for various lines of businesses within the corporation so getting them all to agree on content is almost impossible. Not everyone is doing the same thing with the information. Some need more than others. This is where "knowing your audience" becomes critical in the process. The creative challenge for us is to build in a modular format for simplicity sake and future maintenance of the programs.
When I consult with my clients, I stay clear from the Implementation process initially. Many times I am approached to create computer-base training before knowing what the content is for the course. I quickly steer the client back to the Analysis phase to analyze what is really needed. Often times, the client realizes that the issue was not training after all but more of a management issue. Understanding the audience can help you better consult with your client and maintain the integrity of your delivery methods.
Knowing the learning styles provides a basis in understanding how people learn. While the learning styles are not concret, there is enough information to determine some basic understanding of how to approach certain situations. This has helped me many times in figuring out how to create an engaging experience for the audience.
I do believe that cross-learning from similar vocations can be very beneficial. But I also know that there is a reason why these vocations are different. Marketing and instructional design have some common ground that we can learn from. However, I have seen too much mixing of marketing and instructional design that has an adverse affect. I am cautious of using too much marketing in building an instructional design course. I have witnessed people putting in too much fluff and not enough substance in a course. The "fluff" was all the flashy, fun things that quickly become boring and unnecessary in an attempt to "market" a concept or product to the employees. The audience is there to learn rather than to be entertained. And yes, learning can be fun, but with moderation and with a precise learning strategy.
Duane

The observant Duane wrote:
"The one thing that I have experienced over the years is that old ideas are constant. The only thing that changes is how they are presented."
Welcome to the world that magicians inhabit!!
He also pointed out that: "Often times, the client realizes that the issue was not training after all but more of a management issue".
This is one of my "unwritten" checks and balances when investigating course requirements. I will assume it is not a training issue until proven otherwise.
Duane's statement is one of the most insightful observations here, and in any of the "business" related eLearning threads. Often, our industry/IDs miss this completely, partly for fear of not "making the sale", or "getting the bonus". Very often, the client will have a budget t... Expand

The observant Duane wrote:
"The one thing that I have experienced over the years is that old ideas are constant. The only thing that changes is how they are presented."
Welcome to the world that magicians inhabit!!
He also pointed out that: "Often times, the client realizes that the issue was not training after all but more of a management issue".
This is one of my "unwritten" checks and balances when investigating course requirements. I will assume it is not a training issue until proven otherwise.
Duane's statement is one of the most insightful observations here, and in any of the "business" related eLearning threads. Often, our industry/IDs miss this completely, partly for fear of not "making the sale", or "getting the bonus". Very often, the client will have a budget to "solve the problem", and when a plausible (sexy) eLearning solution comes along, they will jump on it as the solution. After all....training is not measurable (!), so what the hell if it all goes wrong - I can always blame the ID :)]
It's a bit like people attributing their understanding of "stage magic" to smoke and mirrors, or their understanding of close-up magic to the sleeves (it seldom ever is by the way, but they make a great "get-out" clause...).
Back to the observational questions I have made before - "What is your real measurable business problem?", and "From a business perspective, what keeps you awake at night?".
I've never found a time yet when these have not elavated my understanding of the situation that they want to try and solve. Clients seem to like being asked the questions - refreshing honesty, and very different from the usual ones people get asked in a "training" situation. Re-frame the argument. It also sometimes gives them a chance to "get one over" on someone in HR who has no interest in "business issues", who have suggested "Do some training", (sorry - I have to use all the tools I have at my disposal...!).
**Truth 1: This BTW means that IDs must (IMHO) have some exposure to business OUTSIDE of ID'ing and training/HR. I do not believe that an ID can spend an entire career in ID and be good. How can you write a book that truly represents real love if you have never experienced real love? IDs in business need to understand the language and operational realities of business. Can you talk about ROI? Can you talk about margins, revenue, contribution, strategy etc? Can you talk at Board and Shopfloor levels with equal ease and power?
In this situation, you have a game-changer. You are not offering a course to one group, but to another group THAT AFFECTS THE FIRST GROUP. This is seeing business as an organic beast, bit as silo'd departments. It gains you credibility, it gains you contacts and extra suppporters, and often gets MUCH higher sponsorship in the organisation.
The ADDIE model?
Perhaps the 2 "D"s represent DARE and DIFFERENT. The "I" and "E" could be INTERESTING (or INDUSTRY or INSIGHTFUL?) and EXCITING, and the "A" = ALWAYS.
Bruce

I enjoyed reading this post and appreciate the tips. I am new to the field of Instructional Design and reading about different strategies and approaches can help me have an advantage in my organization, as they are currently looking for new ways to design and deliver the trainings. This post fall in line with what they want to accomplish.
Most of their trainings all follow the same format and after a while they start to all look alike. It is becoming more of a challenge to keep trainees engaged in the online learning. Every once in a while they will create a new training that has a completely different format. One I remember was in the form of a comic book. They would walk you through a story, inform you of the material, then have you decide what the character in the comic should do nex... Expand

I enjoyed reading this post and appreciate the tips. I am new to the field of Instructional Design and reading about different strategies and approaches can help me have an advantage in my organization, as they are currently looking for new ways to design and deliver the trainings. This post fall in line with what they want to accomplish.
Most of their trainings all follow the same format and after a while they start to all look alike. It is becoming more of a challenge to keep trainees engaged in the online learning. Every once in a while they will create a new training that has a completely different format. One I remember was in the form of a comic book. They would walk you through a story, inform you of the material, then have you decide what the character in the comic should do next based on your knowledge of the material you just read. It was one of their more successful trainings to say the least.
Thank you for sharing! I look forward to hearing more great ideas on incorporating new strategies into e-learning.

I realize that this is a very old post, but it is so very interesting and insightful.
It has always been my perception that instruction and marketing (sales) are fundamentally the same process. The instructor/course material MUST be accepted/bought by the student as something they recognize their own need for, to be successful in accomplishing their own goals.
It simply doesn't matter how good the material may be, from the provider's viewpoint. If the student doesn't "buy it" and carry it away with them, the course has failed. There is no other purpose for training.
Thank you all for sharing your expertise. You are an inspiration and a valued resource.